Robot-assisted vs. conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Numerous advances have been made in prosthesis design, instrumentation and postoperative rehabilitation for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; however, only 70-86% of patients are satisfied with the functional outcome and revision rates range between 10% and 20%. The primary outcome for this meta-analysis was implantation accuracy of component positioning and tibiofemoral component safe zone. A total of three randomized controlled trials (RCT), three quasi-RCTs and one prospective trial were included in this review. It was found that the use of robotic-assisted systems reduces implantation errors without an increase in adverse events. There are only a few reports about clinical outcome and long-term follow-up and whether the more accurate component positioning results in a better clinical effect or a better long-term survival of the implants is unknown.

Accuracy of Bone Resection in MAKO Total Knee Robotic-Assisted Surgery

“…Proximal tibia resection deviated by 0.7 mm (0.5) and had a mean valgus/varus deviation of 0.5 degrees. A systematic review by Fu et al (2018) 9 showed implantation accuracy for roboticassisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was significantly greater for both femoral and tibial implants compared with conventional UKA. Overall, the earlier results demonstrate that using the MAKO robotic-assisted TKA will allow surgeons to achieve a set plan with minimal error with also having good reproducibility.…”

Superior component position during robotic-assisted Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) compared with conventional technique: A 5-year follow-up study

“…Robotically assisted UKA has been introduced, which provides accurate feedback of the relative position of the cutting jigs and the host bones during operation. A number of reports have demonstrated that implantation could be more accurate in robotically assisted UKA as compared with conventional technique on a consistent basis [10][11][12]. Apart from that, robotically assisted operation can be more reproducible, which is of great benefit because the technics of the procedure are challenging in UKA surgery.…”

“…Although several reports have already illustrated the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted UKA [10,12], there are few studies containing mid-term results [13,14]. Unfortunately, to our knowledge, no prospective randomized study comparing component position or clinical outcomes of the robotic-assisted UKA with conventional UKA at a mid-term follow-up is available.…”

Artroplastía Total de Rodilla con Asistencia de Brazo-Robótico: Resultados Clínicos Postoperatorios Tempranos

“…[10][11][12][13] Sin embargo, la repercusión clínica en términos de mejora en la tasa de complicaciones y sobrevida del implante con nuevas revisiones no ha sido demostrada. [10][11][12][13][14] Estudios comparativos recientes entre la cirugía protésica de rodilla con asistencia robótica y la cirugía convencional han evidenciado diferencias significativas en el postoperatorio inmediato. La asistencia robótica ha permitido un postoperatorio con menor dolor y menor pérdida sanguínea, mayor funcionalidad física, una rehabilitación precoz del rango de movilidad articular (ROM), mejor percepción de salud y mayor satisfacción general.…”

“…La asistencia robótica ha permitido un postoperatorio con menor dolor y menor pérdida sanguínea, mayor funcionalidad física, una rehabilitación precoz del rango de movilidad articular (ROM), mejor percepción de salud y mayor satisfacción general. 11,12,14 Sin embargo, la literatura es limitada y poco representativa, pues proviene en su mayoría de países anglosajones y asiáticos. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] A nuestro entender, no existen reportes clínicos en Latinoamérica sobre ese tema.…”